Touchy-Feely Economic Policy

I literally can’t understand why the American people think George Bush and the Republicans are to blame for the current economic problems.  Say what you want about Bush, but the economy has been absolutely wonderful for the last seven years, almost the entirety of his time in office.  It’s only the last couple months that things have turned sour.

What exactly have the Democrats done in the last two years about the economy?  I hear all sorts of Johnny-come-lately politicians claiming to have warned about the economic crisis, but not one of them did anything.  Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, the Democratic social engineering programs, and the government-backed groups like Fannie and Freddie all shoulder most of the blame here.  And yet, for some reason people are hooting like monkeys, saying: “This is George Bush’s fault.  This is because of Republican deregulation.”

That’s garbage.  Regulation and social engineering is at least mostlyto blame for this mess, and that’s indisputable.  Government intervention is now making it worse.  If you want to blame Bush for something, blame him for backing (along with Obama, McCain, and all the rest) that sickening bailout bill and these other economic “stimulus” packages.

Still, government’s just not that important in the long run.  The economy will recover, and not because McCain backs a new bill or Obama signs a new entitlement program.  The economy will recover because it’s made up of millions of people engaging in free trade and enterprise.  I wish the government would just stand aside and let them get on with it.

What’s scary to me is that the government is beginning to do the one thing – the only thing – it possibly can that will actually, seriously screw things up forever.  What’s scary is that every Marxist-leaning Chicken Little is coming out and saying “Capitalism is broken.”  They’re growing emboldened.  They see a borderline socialist like Obama about to become president with a borderline socialist Congress to give him whatever he wants, and they’re secretly clapping their little rat claws with glee.  This is the first step towards their version of what’s “right” and “moral” for society.  And it’s inevitable: With this election cycle, we have a choice between Big Government and Bigger Government.  With the economy as bad as it is, people are willing to vote for anyone who promises relief and a check in the mail.  They’ll give the looters a lot of leeway, they’ll nod along to social programs and stimulus bills and more regulation for those “greedy” rich people.

After all, it sounds so lovely on paper doesn’t it?  It’s all about being nice and giving back to the country that’s done so much for you.  You’ve done so well; shouldn’t the government require that you pay a little more – just a little – to help those who simply want a good home for their kids?  What could be more decent than that?  Doesn’t it sound so unfair and mean-spirited that McCain wants to give all those rich corporations tax cuts?  What do those greedy bastards need with more money?

We could say that those “greedy bastards” are the ones doing all the investing in America and creating all the jobs.  We could say that all McCain wants to do is leave them alone and stop punishing them as if they’re criminals who need to be fined.  We could say that someone has a right to do whatever they want with the money they earn.  We could say that it’s stunningly immoral to take what others earn at the point of a gun and give it to those who “deserve” it.

None of that ever seems to matter.  It’s as if all people want to hear is: “We’ll make it all better.  We’re going to reward you with an allowance and lots of rules to protect you from your own decisions because we care.”  This is what they seem to want, and this is what they’re going to get.

Predatory Lenders

I hear a lot about “predatory” lenders nowadays, institutions that apparently give loans that are too expensive for people to afford.  I guess the argument is that these financial institutions know very well that the people they’re loaning money to couldn’t pay back the loans, so their behavior becomes “predatory.”  They’re preying on people.  Right.

First of all, many of these “predatory” lenders have been pressured or encouraged to give loans to poor people by social engineering politics and groups like Acorn.  Some politicians and community organizations seem to think that giving people homes they can’t afford is a sound policy.  This is a Democratic problem.  Chris Dodd and Obama are the biggest recipients of money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.  Obama gave $800 grand to Acorn.  It’s amazing, but the Democrats are the ones in bed (literally in Barney Frank’s case) with these faulty financial social programs that are mostly to blame for the economy – and yet Americans are equating the Republicans with a bad economy.

Actually, I guess this isn’t so amazing when the entire Democratic economic “plan” is: Vote for us and we’ll give you money.  I hate to say this about the American people, but it seems many would rather cheer for a plan promising handouts than a plan that will create jobs.

But back to the point.  I would love to see how many documented cases we have of people who are now in trouble and can’t pay their mortgage, who were deceived by their lender.  I would love to see the numbers on this.  How many of them were actually lied to or tricked?  If they were, then those lenders should be prosecuted.  But as we all know, this isn’t a case of the lenders doing anything illegal; it’s overwhelmingly a case of people taking out loans they couldn’t afford.

I hate to be a cold-hearted bastard, but here it is: Deal with it.  Life isn’t fair.  As adults, we live with our bad decisions; we don’t demand that the government steal other people’s money to pay for them.  It’s not as if these lenders put a gun to anyone’s head and forced them to take out a loan they couldn’t afford.  If you didn’t read the fine print, if you didn’t pay enough attention to interest rates, if you assumed that the housing market would keep going up, that’s YOUR fault.

Let’s say a man goes to Las Vegas and gambles away his savings, his house, his kids’ college fund, and gets his family thrown out on the street.  Should the government help him out?  Granted, it’s a sad fact that his family lost their home, but the should the government force others to pay for this man’s bad decisions? 

How about the casinos?  After all, they’re willingly and knowingly rigging a game in which they always win.  People go there and lose vast amounts of money all the time.  Should we crack down on these “predatory” Las Vegas casinos?  Or should we say, “Hopefully you learned your lesson” to the poor guy?

Life isn’t fair.  It definitely isn’t easy and without risk.  Giving poor people homes they can’t afford – while certainly a sweet gesture – isn’t doing them a favor.  And there’s nothing moral about taking the money other people have earned and redistributing it to those who possibly, arguably deserve it.  This is the real world, not some idealistic socialist fantasy-realm that certain politicians would have us believe.

America’s First Left-Wing Radical President

Maybe I’m way out of the loop here, but I just don’t understand why Americans are voting for Barack Obama.  A man with this many questionable ties and friendships is going to be in the Oval Office.  A man who sat listening to a racist scumbag like Jeremiah Wright for twenty years and then has the temerity to tell us he never knew the extent of his views.  Christ, Obama acts like Wright just said his controversial statements in a vacuum, like he got drunk one night and started spouting off.  This “reverend” paints these sickening notions as the main thrust of his message.  They’re on the church’s website, they’re on fliers in the lobby!

Yet Obama defends this guy, then decides to drop him when it might hurt his political career, then tells us he never knew the man had those views.  And America doesn’t care.

We have a similar situation with Bill Ayers and his wife.  Again, Obama’s piddling little excuses come out.  He was eight years old when Ayers committed his bombings.  Okay, but how old was Obama around 9/11, when Ayers stated that he should have done more?  How old was Obama when he sat on boards with this guy or wrote a blurb for his book?

This is mind-boggling to me.  We’re going to put this guy in the White House!  One of the most liberal leaders in America is going to have a very Democratic Congress at his beck and call.  A guy who is comfortable hanging out with – and even choosing as his mentor and spiritual advisor – radicals, racists, and domestic terrorists.  How is Obama going to fight terrorism?  He doesn’t even have the moral fortitude to tell a guy like Bill Ayers: “You’re an unrepentant terrorist who hates this country – I’m not going to talk to you or have any dealings with you whatsoever.”

I’m a convicted felon and I wouldn’t shake hands with a guy like Bill Ayers.  But Obama needed the guy for his political career.  And America doesn’t care.

This isn’t about partisanship.  If McCain had ties to people like Wright and Ayers, I would absolutely be calling for his head.  But it wouldn’t matter – if McCain had friends like Wright and Ayers, he would have been forced out of the race long ago.  He never would have had a chance.  Jeremiah Wright talks about “white greed” and America being run by racist white men and the “United States of KKK.”  What if McCain had chosen as his lifelong spiritual advisor someone who said equivalent things?  And what if McCain’s excuse was, “He’s really a good man who taught me about Jesus.  Don’t listen to that time he called all black people crack-smoking gangbangers.  That was just one stupid thing he said.”

Even without his connections, the future Obama envisions for this country appears rather ominous.  More government spending, more social engineering, wealth redistribution, mandated health care, an apologist approach to dictators like Ahmadinejad, a blame-America-first stance.  But hey, he’s charismatic and he promises to give all the voters money.  So elect away, America.  Put your hands out and Obama will smile and pat your little heads and give you your allowance.  He knows what’s best for you.  Just ask him.

As I’ve said before, I hope Obama does well.  I hope things improve.  I don’t wish harm on him and especially not on America.  But this seems to me absurd.  Wake up, people.

Joe the American

I was watching Hannity & Colmes when their guest was “Joe the Plumber,” and he said something that almost brought tears to my eyes.  Something that Obama and his socialist-leaning friends and colleagues could never understand.  Something the snivelers of the left-wing media will probably ridicule. 

Alan Colmes said that Obama’s tax cut to middle-class Americans would essentially put another thousand bucks in Joe’s pocket.  So, Colmes asked, wouldn’t you want to support the candidate who is going to give you that break and make it easier on your home budget?

I thought Joe’s response was inspirational.  He sad that he wouldn’t, in fact, want that extra thousand bucks.  Why?  Because it would come from the pockets of those who had worked harder than he had or caught a better break.  I was agog.  I swear I wanted to plug in my guitar and play “The Star-Spangled Banner” at top volume. 

It was about values for Joe, not about whether he thinks he deserves more money.  Being a leftist, Alan Colmes didn’t know how to respond.  I suppose that in his America , the politician that buys the most votes by telling middle-class Americans how pathetic they are should be the one seen as more “in touch” with the people. 

As is typical with Colmes, he brought out the old tactic of rushing to the bottom.  He pointed out that America has always had a progressive tax system, that we’ve always expected the wealthy to foot more of the bill, that even Reagan and Bush taxed the rich more, that even McCain is leaning toward a socialist move like buying up bad mortgages. 

Guess what, Mr. Colmes?  Saying that “everyone else does it” does not excuse it.  And neither does it make it a good policy.  The progressive tax system is wrong.  McCain is wrong.  Reagan and Bush were wrong.  We should get rid of the IRS and institute a flat or fair tax.  And here’s a big surprise for you: The wealthy would still be footing most of the bill even if they paid the same percentage as everyone else!

What Joe the Plumber said was one of the most refreshingly American things I’ve heard on TV in a long time.  No wonder everyone’s paying attention to him.  No wonder the left-wing media is ridiculing the man.  Imagine that: The choice is between a free check for a thousand dollars, and adhering to your belief that social welfare and wealth redistribution is wrong.  This country would be in a lot better shape if everyone would choose like Joe the American did.

Typical Creationist Pseudo-Science, Part III

In Mr. Incredible’s ongoing quest to show that he knows more about my positions that I do myself, he has accused me of denying that God exists.  Here is a quote: “So this has nothing to do with what you want us to believe is intelligence, empiricism, logic, nor reason.  It has to do with the fact that you want to be able to persuade yourself that, through your own arrogant power, you can avoid and ignore a Power and Judgement greater than yourself.”

I don’t know how many different ways I can say this Mr. Incredible: I am perfectly open to the possibility that a higher power exists.  I await only evidence, and so far the only “evidence” you’ve pointed out is the personal experience of millions of Christians.  If that is to be our standard of evidence, how about the personal experience of millions of Muslims, or Jews, or Buddhists, or atheists?  My only “arrogance” is that I hold every claim – whether it is a claim of ghosts, God, evolution, or the Big Bang - to the same standard of evidence.

But since you don’t believe me, I must be lying or deluding myself.  I can’t argue with an intellect as powerful as yours, so I’ll try to concentrate on more impersonal subjects.

You asked, “What kind of science leaves input out?”  Well, no science that I know of.  All the fields of science are constantly awash with new ideas, new theories, young graduate students challenging the status quo, and old curmudgeonly academics being forced to defend their positions to upstarts.  This is why science works; this is why it produces results.  This is why we have vaccines, cell phones, space probes, and longer life spans (to give a few examples).

What your problem seems to be is that science leaves out the input of millions of Christians who swear that they’ve felt God, witnessed His actions, etc.  Actually, science doesn’t leave it out.  You can find a great many books and articles written by scientists about personal experience, faith, the power of belief, and the science of belief.  (As an example, I would recommend one such book, How We Believe, by Michael Shermer – he was once a Christian and is now the editor of Skeptic magazine.)  The issue of these personal testimonies have been repeatedly addressed by science.

But there is a good reason why personal testimony is not treated as empirical evidence: It’s unreliable.  Surely you can’t deny that in the vast majority of cases, claims of angel sightings, miracles, faith healing, and so on, have turned out to be simple fraud, delusion, or misinterpretation.  People are heavily biased and influenced by what they want to believe, what comforts them, what frightens them, and what they are led to believe by authority and social pressure.  The recent hyped-up scare about “recovered” memories of sexual abuse that landed innocent people in prison is one poignant example of just how unreliable people’s perceptions are.

Science also practices what it preaches, so to speak.  No one in the scientific community – and I mean no one – takes personal experience as evidence of a theory.  No one accepts evolution, the Big Bang, or quantum theory because “millions of people testify to it.”  Such a person would be laughed out of academia.  The cases for these theories are built on observable, testable, and measurable empirical data, not on personal testimonies or revealed knowledge.

Furthermore, a scientific theory can be proven wrong.  Evolution, for example, would be proven wrong if just one single anachronistic fossil were found.  Just one horse in the strata of the trilobites, or a hominid fossil in with the dinosaurs.  The entire theory would come crashing down, and scientists freely admit it.  Falsifiability is the hallmark of science.

If your positions is scientific and not merely based on faith, Mr. Incredible, answer me this:  How could it be proven wrong?  Even hypothetically – how could it possibly be shown that all those personal testimonies are erroneous?

Typical Creationist Pseudo-Science, Part II

In asking for any evidence that points to the Christian God’s existence, Mr. Incredible has returned with what I think is personal testimony of millions of people throughout history, only he presents these testimonies as “experiments.”  Here are several quotes:

“They did what God told them to do, plugged in His principles, turned on the switch and they found that it works.”

“…those who have done the experiment and found that what God says is true have observed the results, not merely opined.”

“You don’t accept the witness testimony of those who have done the experiment, inputted the things God told them to input, switched the Power on and found that it lights up.  I can’t help you if you want to be uncooperative.”

“Witnesses have found that, through experiment – observation of the results from the cooperative action of inputs – what God says is true.  They have observed His promises performed, manifested, distilled from the spiritual merely cuz [sic] they asked, in faith that He is able and willing to perform what He promised.  I have observed this time and time again, and I testify of [sic] it.”

The first question that comes to my mind is this, Mr. Incredible: What about the millions of people who have “done the experiment” and found something else?  That is, the people (like me) who were once Christians and eventually came to see it differently?  There are more non-Christians in the world than Christians – what about all of them?  What about discerning adults who have looked at the major religions and chosen a different one?  Doesn’t the witness testimony of all these people count for anything, or do you only listen to testimony from those who affirm your position?

What about all of the testimony of your fellow Christians?  Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Jehovah’s Witnesses – millions of Christians who can testify to different “truths.”  Are all of them simply wrong?  They claim the same testimonial evidence and monopoly on the truth that you do.  How are us skeptics to know how to separate the two?  Explain to me why your claim – which so far seems identical to all of theirs – should be taken more seriously.

Secondly, you repeatedly mention that many people – including yourself – have observed this time and time again.  Fair enough.  But you have not yet given one example.  Give me one.  Just a single incident where you observed one of “His promises performed.”  Otherwise, how can I – as someone who has not yet observed what you have – be certain of what you really experienced?

Thirdly, I will quote David Hume: “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.”  In other words, are you so certain that what you observed was an act of God, or does it have a much more parsimonious explanation?

Fourthly, if we are to take seriously the testimony of Christians who have felt God’s effects, then why should we not take seriously the testimony of those who have felt the effects of astrology?  After all, plenty of people have done what astrology told them to do, plugged in its principles, and found that it works.  This is undeniable: You can find the sworn testimony of literally millions of people who can tell you that astrological predictions are real and that they have observed them coming true in their lives.

Honestly, I fail to understand how the two cases are different.  Please explain.

Apes in the Family Tree

I saw an episode of Nova recently that featured behavioral experiments on chimpanzees on bonobos.  Many creationists have said to me that there are spiritual differences between apes and men, no matter the similarities.  For instance, humans look in a mirror and see themselves; we are self-aware and animals are not.  This is because humans have souls.

Of course it is simply not true that animals aren’t self-aware.  While most animals, including primates like monkeys, never understand what a mirror shows them, the higher apes do.  A chimpanzee quickly learns to use the mirror to experiment with making faces, to look at previously inaccessible parts of its body, and to groom itself.  Chimpanzees and bonobos also have emotions and distinct personalities.  They have the rudiments of culture.  They hold grudges and get jealous.  They look outside themselves and plan ahead; a good example of this on the Nova episode was a chimp walking over to a human and pulling him by the hand to help it move a heavy rock, under which was hidden food the chimp wanted.

It seems likely that the difference in intelligence between humans and the higher apes is simply a matter of degree.  Is it a coincidence that humans have the largest brains relative to body mass?  That we have a neocortex with lots of wrinkles to increase the surface area of our gray matter?  These are biological differences, not spiritual ones.

I can understand the aversion some people have to such a notion, but not the denial of it.  Whether we like an idea or not says absolutely nothing about whether it’s true.  Personally, I would rather face a thought-provoking and even difficult reality than be comforted by any fairy tale.  Besides, what is so degrading about the possibility of not having a soul, something magical that makes us spiritually distinct?  Does it take away from what we believe in?  Does it change the way we feel, love, or care?  Does it erase what we’ve accomplished as a species?  Why should you be any less inclined to enjoy life?  The people that are important to you do not become less so.  The values you hold are not diminished.

Yet many creationists are disconcerted at facing this notion, that humans are “mere” animals with a bit more surface area within their skulls.  They find the thought of being related to apes abhorrent. (I knew a guy once whose only response to the topic of evolution was, “I didn’t evolve from a monkey,” and he would grow angry if pushed further.)  But why should that make us any less?  As Carl Sagan has noted, all of us humans are much more closely related to Hitler and every horrible human being who ever lived than we are to chimpanzees.  Yet we don’t allow this fact to devalue us.  Why should it?  The fact that we are intelligent animals doesn’t obligate us to act like less intelligent ones.

Evolution and Friends

I was watching a rerun of Friends the other night, and it happened to be an episode that showcased one of my favorite topics: evolution.  Ross, being the strict scientist (paleontologist, to be exact) was aghast that Phoebe didn’t believe in evolution.  It irked him to frustration that his spacey, New-Age friend could dismiss such a powerfully-established scientific theory with statements like, “It’s just one of many possible explanations.”

Ross told her that there are clear examples of fossil transitions; he even showed her million-year-old fossil bones to prove the theory to her.  She wouldn’t budge, and finally Phoebe had him trapped (she had just been screwing wiht him in the first place).  She pointed out that scientific theories have been wrong in the past, and challenged him by saying, “Can you be so incredibly arrogant as to sit here and say that there’s not the slightest, tiniest, remotest chance that evolution could be wrong?”

Ross, eyes downcast, is forced to reluctantly admit that sure, a tiny chance might possibly exist that evolution is wrong.  The joke was that Phoebe then castigated him, implying that he was wishy-washy and that at least when he stuck to his guns, she’d had respect for him.

Of course, were Ross and actual scientist and Phoebe pulled that “Are you so arrogant to think that there’s zero chance you’re wrong,” line, he would proudly admit his humility, not be ashamed by it.  I bring this up because the situation was funny, but also because Phoebe’s position is so incredibly common in real life.

Science is never “one-hundred-percent, absolutely positive, can’t-be-wrong” correct.  That would make it irrefutable, and only faith is irrefutable.  A paleontologist like Ross would never say, “Evolution can’t be proven wrong.”  He would say, “There’s so much evidence, it’s almost certainly true.”  Indeed, in reality scientists will tell you flat-out how to poke holes in evolution!  It’s not that there aren’t ways of doing that; it’s just that all of the experiments dreamt up so far have only reaffirmed the theory.

Phoebe was right in saying it would be arrogant to claim that evolution couldn’t possibly be wrong.  But she was incorrect in implying that it’s a sign of weakness (she even said she lost respect for Ross).  This intellectual humility is the greatest strength of science.  That’s what allows it to change, grow, and weed out mistakes.

Stephen Jay Gould put it best: “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’”

The word “provisional” is the key.  It makes all the difference.  Ask a deeply religious person if they describe their faith as “provisional” and you’ll see the difference loud and clear.  They condemn scientists for not having all the answers and for presenting their theories as provisional, but they themselves don’t have a single answer to offer; they generally have only personal opinions.  Opinions are fine, but when you try to present them as reality, you’re claiming to “know” things that you really don’t know at all.  The difference between science and faith is that science wouldn’t dare to be so arrogant.

Typical Creationist Pseudo-Science

Here is Mr. Incredible’s position: Evolution can’t bridge the gap between 1) nothing and something, 2) something and life, and 3) life and humanity (self-conscious and free will).  I haven’t yet heard him expound any further; he simply asserts these things as facts and claims there is no evidence of any such connections.

Number 1: This is a matter for physics and cosmology, not evolutionary biology.  Further, it is based on the false premise that there is any “gap” to begin with.  Perhaps there has always been “something,” in which case there was never “nothing.”  Perhaps, as modern physics has argued, the net energy in the universe is actually zero, in which case “nothing” came from “nothing.”

Number 2:  This is certainly an incomplete and ongoing area of evolutionary theory, but there isevidence of a “bridge” between something and life.  Organic compounds such as amino acids form with ease out of inorganic matter.  Simple protein molecules have been observed making trail-and-error “decisions” on enzymes.  Even nonliving crystals have a rudimentary form of “hereditary.”  We’ve come a ling way since Urey-Miller.

Number 3: Chimpanzees are self-conscious and have free will.  They recognize themselves in a mirror, make individual decisions, have individual personalities, form individual bonds, have an innate sense of fairness, make plans, get jealous and envious, create tools, plot deceptions, and mourn their dead.

Mr. Incredible also said: “We still don’t know how matter is produced.”

Who ever said that matter is being produced?  From the laws of thermodynamics, we know quite the opposite: that matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed.  If you’re speaking of ultimate beginnings, as in how something came from nothing, I refer you to the point I made above:  How do you know there was ever nothing?  How do you know that the matter and energy present in the universe haven’t always been there?  If you want to delve deeper into the cosmological argument, how do you know there must be a First Cause?

One more point: Mr. Incredible keeps accusing me of hypocrisy, saying that I have “faith” in something like quantum mechanics (which is incomplete and begs many questions), and yet I reject Christianity.  He even stated that I accept quantum mechanics because a lot of people say it’s real.

Mr. Incredible, quantum theory has given us lasers, TVs, and supermarket scanners.  It has produced empirical results; that’s why I say it has scientific value.  No faith is required.  I don’t understand why you continue to make this fallacious argument.  Do you believe that quantum theory has not produced these things?  Or are you saying that because it’s incomplete, we should throw the whole thing out as merely faith?

There are plenty of theories in science that are incomplete.  In fact, a fundamental tenet of science is that it’s alwaystreated as “incomplete,” or provisional.  Only faith is irrefutable.  Science would never make such an arrogant claim.  The standard model of cosmology is far from complete, but that doesn’t invalidate the evidence for black holes and dark matter.  The theory of evolution has unanswered questions, but that doesn’t invalidate evidence such as the fossil record, vestigial organs, and homogeny.

In the same vein, of course quantum mechanics is unfinished, but if the theory has led to such achievements, do you not think it’s unreasonable to say that this is evidence of its merit?

Mr. Incredible and God, Part IV

In Mr. Incredible’s presentation of the “fact” that the rules of evidence don’t apply to his belief that God is real (but they do apply to all of my positions, unsurprisingly), I was given several challenges.  Prove that love is real, I was dared.  Prove that something is beautiful.  Prove with logic that the Fifth Symphony is sheer beauty.  Describe scientifically the fragrance of violets.  (The idea being that I can’t, and that God is like these things.)

As usual, creationists like Mr. Incredible confuse their perceptions with objective reality.  Prove that a symphony – or anything else – is beautiful.  Okay, first you have to define what “beautiful” means, Mr. Incredible.  It’s not objective, so that’s a problem.  If you had asked me to prove that something weighs about 150 pounds on the normal gravity of earth, as measured by an ordinary American bathroom scale, that would be easy, because that’s something we can objectively observe.  No matter who’s doing the weighing – me, you, a Tibetan monk, or an alien from Andromeda – the result would be the same.

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, to use an appropriate cliche.  I can’t prove that something is beautiful because “beautiful” is simply a term Homo sapiens use to describe something they find pleasing to the senses.  I’m sure guinea pigs find their high-pitched squeals agreeable, but to many of us, they’re grating.  We can’t even agree on a particular singing voice of our fellow humans as beautiful.  I’m sorry, but the Fifth Symphony, a sunset, the Sistine Chapel, and Angelina Jolie are not objectively beautiful.  It’s simply that in a log of people’s subjective opinions, they are.

The same goes for the smell of violets.  Science is quite capable of describing the biological mechanisms that cause a violet to emit odor-causing particles.  As far as anything more … some people describe the fragrance of a violet as “wistful” and “haunting.”  Science can’t do that because, again, this is just the opinion of some random people.  Not everyone likes the smell of violets.  It would be as futile as asking me to describe scientifically why I might enjoy one TV show over another. 

I hate to crudely break down something like love (being a rationalist doesn’t make me heartless, you know), but in this case, it’s more of the same.  You’d have to define what love is before proving that it’s real.  Many people have very different ideas about what constitutes love.  Many people also have very different ideas about what constitutes loving behavior.  Many people also claim to love people and pretty clearly do not (as evidenced by repeated harmful actions or abuse).  Even if it were possible for every human being on the planet to all agree on an indisputable definition of love, this is still a subjective opinion.  It says nothing about objective reality.

Now, in the case of love, this doesn’t matter.  It’s as real to me as it is to many others.  The fact that I call it subjective opinion doesn’t change the reality that I love my mother, for example, nor does it lessen the strength of that love.  But when we’re talking about applying a subjective opinion to objective reality – like the charge of an electron, say – it does matter.  Because the charge of an electron is always negative.  The electron doesn’t care what you name it, how you describe its charge, or whether you look at it or refuse to admit it exists.  It has a quality that we describe as a negative charge no matter what.  If it doesn’t, it’s not an electron.

The same goes for God.  He either exists or He doesn’t. Maybe there’s evidence for His existence, maybe there’s not.  But one thing is for certain:  The way you or I or anyone feels about God doesn’t change the nature of His existence or non-existence.